Law Commons^™

Disinformation And The First Amendment: Fraud On The Public, Wes Henricksen

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Following the 2020 presidential election, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, along with most of the Republican Party, spread the false claim that the election had been stolen by Democrats. Joe Biden, so the claim went, had not been legitimately elected, and was therefore an illegitimate President and needed to be removed. This profitable falsehood6 became known as the “Big Lie.” It was not only baseless, but it was in fact made in spite of and in direct conflict with the overwhelming evidence debunking it. This did not stop people from believing it. Millions bought into the Big Lie, which …

Whistleblowing Speech And The First Amendment, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Indiana Law Journal

Alexander Meiklejohn, the iconic First Amendment scholar who expounded the democratic self-government theory of the freedom of speech, posited that for demo-cratic self-government to function, the voters themselves must possess the infor-mation necessary to hold the government accountable. Yet, the information neces-sary for the citizenry to render wise electoral verdicts not uncommonly belongs to the government itself, and government officials often prove highly reluctant to share information that reflects badly on them and their work. The lack of critically im-portant information about the government’s performance makes it difficult, if not impossible, for voters to hold government accountable on Election Day. …

November Madness: A Proposal For Representative Democracy Brackets To Eliminate The Undue Influence Of Money On Elections, Daniel P. Valentine

Texas A&M Law Review

This Comment proposes Representative Democracy Brackets, a multi-level manner of choosing candidates in which all voters have an equal voice, but which by its structure reduces the effect of mass marketing in favor of a focus on forming and evaluating interpersonal relationships. By implementing Representative Democracy Brackets, a state or the United States can achieve the twin benefits of decreasing the undue effects of political spending and increasing the quality of the resulting decisions. The proposed brackets winnow the pool of voters until it is small enough to make an informed decision.

This Comment defines the problem by reviewing the …

A Quantum Congress, Jorge R. Roig

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article tries to address the problem of a corrupt and broken electoral system that has been captured by special interests through big money spending in political campaigns, while at the same time preserving the spirit of the Free Speech Clause of our Constitution. In doing so, this article first reviews and summarizes the different alternatives proposed as potential fixes for the campaign finance problem. It then explains why none of the proposed alternatives can accomplish the dual goals set out above. Finally, the article briefly sketches a proposal for a fundamental reworking of our representative democracy by substituting legislative …

In All Fairness: Using Political Broadcast Access Doctrine To Tailor Public Campaign Fund Matching, Andrew V. Moshirnia, Aaron T. Dozeman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Recent United States Supreme Court decisions have undermined the viability of campaign public financing systems, a vital tool for fighting political corruption. First, Citizens United v. FEC allowed privately financed candidates and independent groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigning. Publicly financed candidates now risk being vastly outspent. Second, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett invalidated a proportional fund matching system whereby privately financed candidates’ or independent groups’ spending triggered funds to publicly funded candidates. These decisions effectuate a libertarian speech doctrine: all speakers, individual or corporate, must be absolutely unburdened. To comply with this approach, …

The Jekyll And Hyde Of First Amendment Limits On The Regulation Of Judicial Campaign Speech, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Fighting Foreign-Corporate Political Access: Applying Corporate Veil-Piercing Doctrine To Domestic-Subsidiary Contributions, Ryan Rott

Michigan Law Review

Campaign finance regulations limit speech. The laws preclude foreign nationals, including foreign corporations, from participating in U.S. politics via campaign contributions. The unusual characteristics of corporations, however, may allow foreign corporations to exploit a loophole in the regulatory regime. A foreign corporation may contribute to political campaigns by acquiring a domestic subsidiary and dominating it. This Note addresses how these unusual corporate behaviors enable foreign corporations to illegally corrupt the political process. This Note concludes that to close the loophole without violating the free speech rights of domestic subsidiaries, Congress should enact legislation which would apply corporate veil-piercing theory to …

Expensive Free Speech: Western Tradition Partnership And The Silencing Of The Private Attorney General Doctrine, Jesse Kodadek

Montana Law Review

Expensive Free Speech: Western Tradition Partnership And The Silencing Of The Private Attorney General Doctrine

Consider The Source: A Note On Public-Sector Union Expenditure Restrictions Upheld In Davenport V. Washington Education Association, Daniel A. Himebaugh

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Televised Political Debates And Arkansas Educational Television Commission V. Forbes: Excluding The Public From Public Broadcasting, Joshua Dale

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Freedom Of Speech Bear The Twenty-First Century's Weight?, Lillian R. Bevier

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Campaign Finance Regulation And The Marketplace Of Emotions, Barry P. Mcdonald

Pepperdine Law Review

This essay examines the validity, in light of new empirical research, of the free speech theory the U.S. Supreme Court uses to justify the doctrines it currently employs to assess the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations. The Court’s model, which Professor McDonald terms the theory of 'stimulated democratic deliberation,' assumes that an unlimited quantity of campaign-related communications will result in increased public deliberation about ideas and better informed citizens, which in turn will result in better decisions about candidates for political office. In short, this model assumes that rational thought and deliberation about important issues of the day drive voter …

Public Corruption Concerns And Counter-Majoritarian Democracy Definition In Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Daaron Kimmel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In determining the shape of the free speech rights and anti-corruption concerns that courts must balance in campaign finance cases, judges are influenced by their own underlying understandings of what an ideal democracy should look like. For judges to decide whether the government is appropriately regulating the political process, the rules that allow all citizens to interact with and shape their democracy, judges must first decide what that democracy ought to look like. This affords judges a great deal of discretion in campaign finance cases. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a particularly bold judicial attempt to reshape the …

Free Speech & Tainted Justice: Restoring The Public's Confidence In The Judiciary In The Wake Of Republican Party Of Minnesota V. White, Gregory W. Jones

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The United States Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White was the first shot fired in an ongoing battle over judicial campaign ethics. The White decision invalidated a Minnesota Canon of Judicial Conduct prohibiting judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political topics. Subsequent to White, numerous states have faced challenges to their judicial canons of conduct by groups advocating for an increased breadth of permissible speech in judicial campaigns. While White and its progeny have safeguarded the first amendment rights of judicial candidates, significant concerns have been raised regarding how best to …

Conditions On Taking The Initiative: The First Amendment Implications Of Subject Matter Restrictions On Ballot Initiatives, Anna Skiba-Crafts

Michigan Law Review

Nearly half of U.S. states offer a ballot initiative process that citizens may use to pass legislation or constitutional amendments by a popular vote. Some states, however, impose substantive restrictions on the types of initiatives citizens may submit to the ballot for a vote-precluding, for example, initiatives lowering drug penalties or initiatives related to religion. Circuit courts are split on whether and how such restrictions implicate the First Amendment. This Note argues that-rather than limiting "expressive conduct" protected only minimally by the First Amendment, or limiting pure conduct that does not garner any First Amendment protectionsubject matter restrictions on ballot …

Corporate Political Speech And The Balance Of Powers: A New Framework For Campaign Finance Jurisprudence In Wisconsin Right To Life, Frances R. Hill

Articles

No abstract provided.

Judicial Elections, Campaign Financing, And Free Speech, Ronald D. Rotunda

Law Faculty Articles and Research

No abstract provided.

State And Local Limitations On Ballot Measure Contributions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note's thesis is that ballot measure limitations unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of free speech and association. Part I analyzes Buckley and concludes that the CARC court misapplied its distinction between contributions and direct expenditures. Part II tests ballot measure limitations against Buckley's "exacting scrutiny" standard. It identifies the state interests asserted in defense of ballot measure limitations - lessening abuse by narrow interest groups, reducing apathy, and equalizing political expression - and concludes that ballot measure limitations do not permissibly further these governmental interests.